On 20 December 2013 06:42, Karol Blazewicz <karol.blazewicz at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv at archlinux.org> wrote:
>> On 20 December 2013 01:11, Karol Blazewicz <karol.blazewicz at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/rstudio/ is something entirely
>>> different than every other 'rstudio' package
>>>https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?&K=rstudio>>> A few users suggested name change.
>>>> I was fooled for a second. I thought this was just another R Studio.
>> I'm guilty of not reading the package description too:
>https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1361971#p1361971>>>>> Can we force the maintainer to change package name? Does the package
>>> have to be properly disowned and reuploaded with a different name?
>>>> Yeah, they have to conform to existing naming schemes. I say rename it
>> to r-studio, though that doesn't really look that much more helpful.
>> I can e-mail the maintainer and we can wait the customary 2 weeks, but
> what exactly should I tell him?
> He did provide a description, so maybe uploading an r-studio package
> using the PKGBUILD provided by gbc921 would be enough?
Since there was no 'rstudio' at the time that user uploaded this one,
there is no infringement of any rule or guideline per se. Just tell
them to upload an 'r-studio' to mitigate the confusion that resulted
from it. I don't think there is any need to merge unless there were
relevant comments. It is up to the maintainer to update the PKGBUILD
with the suggested changes.
--
GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1